Magnus Therning wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem
that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether dynamic
linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have
complete control over what is exposed across a package boundary. We need
this not just for licensing reasons, but also for making a dynamic library
with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later.
I have a really hard time following this. Are you seriously saying
that GHC is inlining code from modules _and_ link dynamically at the
same time. That seems like a remarkably strange thing to do, or maybe
I'm just missing something.
That's exactly what would happen, if we shipped dynamic linking support
with GHC as it stands. It's just a linking mechanism, an alternative to
static linking, and has no impact on the amount or nature of
inter-module optimisation that GHC does.
My understanding from another thread on here was that dynamic linking
isn't working reliably, not even on Windows, where it once was
supported. It has never worked on any other platform.
The fundamental mechanisms are working on {x86, x86-64, PPC, PPC64} /
{Linux, OS X, Windows} and possibly other OSs. However right now you
need a few small patches to the source tree to get it to build. Most of
the unresolved issues are around how to construct binary installs, and
how executables will find their libraries when the run (e.g. if you
install GHC privately in your home directory).
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
